Automatic Flight Control Systems Engineering Essay

Programmed Flight Control Systems Engineering Essay We face a daily reality such that innovation is, if not being improved, created constantly. Regular new upgrades, developments and disclosures are made. One industry that is consistently on the lead with regards to new creations and advancements is the Aviation Industry. Throughout the years, airplanes have been confronting significant enhancements for the structure, eco-friendliness, life-length, scope of flight. In any case, perhaps the best improvement that have been done on each airplane (business) that had the greatest effect in the Aviation Industry and most presumably the fundamental motivation behind why the business has been blasting up is the upgrades done in the Avionics area, explicitly the Automatic Flight Controls. To start with, Pilots were prepared to fly the airplanes alone. In any case, following quite a long while, it is currently the pilots programming the PC, disclosing to it where to fly, at what elevation, and so on. This PC is the AFCS (Automatic Flight Contro l System). In today’s current universe of flying, it is the AFCS who is actually flying the airplane, from cruising to landing, and for some until stopping. The AFCS has a ton of points of interest when contrasted with human pilots with regards to flying. Here are some of them: The AFCS can beat lacks with regards to strength and control. The AFCS improved the dealing with characteristics. For example, when the velocity or the height of the airplane should be steady. The AFCS is increasingly exact and thus can do a few undertakings that the pilot can't do. * Source: Emirates Aviation College’s Automatic Flight Control Systems Book (Chapter 3.1.3) To improve comprehension of the AFCS, its various pieces will be examined, for example, the Autopilot System, Flight Director System, Auto Throttle System and so forth. The data about the AFCS will be founded on one of Boeing’s great airplanes, the 737-500. FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FMS) The Flight Management System is route, consolidated flight control, a Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) and a direction framework. The FMS gives control and activity of five autonomous subsystems to give parallel route (LNAV) and vertical route (VNAV) for execution the executives and ideal flight profiles. The Flight Management System isn't marked to any control board or any single part as it is a combination of five autonomous subsystems. These subsystems are: Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) Inertial Reference System (IRS) Autothrottle Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) Flight Management Computer System (FMCS) * Source: United Airlines’ Boeing 737-322/522 (page 6, Chapter 22-2, Oct ’99) from Emirates Aviation College Library This framework was intended to expand eco-friendliness, wellbeing and abatement remaining task at hand. For the two pilots, this implies they can choose full FMS activity or Autopilot Flight Director System (AFDS) for a total programmed flight. They can even utilize th e Control Display Units (CDU) to give, for manual flight, reference data. The board and activity is absolutely heavily influenced by the flight group. There are just sure tasks that must be executed by the flight team. They are: landing rollout directing, push inversion, speed brake activity, height choice, landing apparatus and fold activity, instrument landing framework (ILS) tuning, push inception, brake discharge, plane pivot and guiding during departure roll.

ANSWERS TO SOME FREQUENTLY Dissertation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

ANSWERS TO SOME FREQUENTLY - Dissertation Example 2. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF TRANSACTIONS TO WHICH THE BAN ON RIBA IS APPLICABLE? DOES THE TERM APPLY ONLY TO THE INTEREST CHARGED ON CONSUMPTION LOANS OR DOES IT ALSO COVER PRODUCTIVE LOANS ADVANCED BY BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS? The Shariah unmistakably expresses that riba al-nasi'ah, â€Å"the fixing ahead of time a positive profit for an advance as an award for waiting† is denied. Thus it could be comprehended as a restriction on enthusiasm as usually utilized today. Islamic legal scholars, the fuqaha, state in no muddled terms that all indications of riba are illegal. So it doesn't make a difference if the setting is utilization or business and furthermore whether the advance in gave or benefited. It is additionally unessential whether the foundation being referred to is a business bank, government organization, business endeavor or a person. 3. DOES THE PROHIBITION OF RIBA APPLY EQUALLY TO THE LOANS OBTAINED FROM OR EXTENDED TO MUSLIMS AS WELL AS NON-MUSLIMS? The Isla mic Fiqh Academy (IFA), which is the main expert on money related exchanges, makes reference to that there is no mercy in the utilization of Shariah laws regardless of whether one gathering of a monetary exchange is non-Muslim. ... IS SUCH A SCHEME ACCEPTABLE FROM AN ISLAMIC POINT OF VIEW? In economies with high paces of expansion, limitations forced by Shariah laws can subvert estimation of ventures. To make up for such a misfortune, a technique for indexation is generally utilized. There is no accord yet among the fuqaha, regarding the similarity of indexation rehearses with Islamic sacred texts. So far the Fiqh Academy has allowed indexation in cases relating to â€Å"wages and contracts satisfied over a time of time† and has prohibited in cases relating to fiscal obligations. Essentially, â€Å"for obligations in a particular cash, due in portions, the gatherings may consent to settle the portions due in an alternate money at the overarching pace of trade on the date of settlement†. 5. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR MODES OF FINANCING USED BY ISLAMIC BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS? Islamic financial framework has designed a couple of sharp methods of financing so as to conform to Shariah standards. The primary mode depends on sharing of the two benefits and misfortunes caused by speculations, individually the mudarahab (detached organization) and musharakah (dynamic association). The subsequent mode works based on layaway offered durig the acquisition of products and ventures and uses such budgetary ideas as murabahah (deal at a benefit markup), ijarah (renting), salam and istisna (contracts). These modes are one of a kind to Islamic back and have been affirmed by fiqh authorities. Aside from being steady with Islamic statutes, these modes boost direct speculations, in this way adding to monetary development of the bank/establishment/nation. However, upgrades should be done so as to coordinate Islamic money related framework into worldwide

University Access Guidelines Published

University Access Guidelines Published The OE Blog The Office for Fair Access published guidelines this week on the access measures expected of universities charging tuition fees over £6000 when the new policy comes into force in 2012. The Coalition government has set an upper limit of £9000 on fees, but has left it to individual universities to choose what price to set for each of their courses. The government, and in particular Nick Clegg, who has come under fire for his U-turn on tuition fees, promised that universities would only charge up to £9000 under “exceptional circumstances”, and that they would be deterred from doing so by extremely demanding requirements for improving access for underprivileged students. Yet these new guidelines, described as “toothless” by the Cambridge University Student Union, provide little reassurance for those concerned that poorer students are going to be priced out of higher education. A sliding scale has been set for the percentage of fee income above £6000 that would have to be spent on access schemes and support for poorer students. The scale ranges from 15% to 30%, with those universities who attract a lower percentage of students from underprivileged backgrounds having to put a higher percentage of income towards improving their access measures. So far, so good. But because this percentage also includes measures of financial support for poorer students, the sliding scale is a poorly thought-out system. Those universities who attract high numbers of poorer students will have a lower percentage set for scholarship and bursary financing, meaning that they may not have enough money to provide adequate funding for the numbers of underprivileged students they need to support! It seems sensible to suggest that universities failing to attract enough lower income applicants should have to spend more on access schemes, but not that those with a high proportion of poorer students ought to be spending less on financial support for them. A waste of money Instead of setting clear and official measures that must be undertaken by universities attracting low numbers of poorer students, the guidelines are wishy-washy and vague, allowing for money to be allocated to “outreach projects” instead of bursaries that would go directly to the students who need them. As universities will be allowed to choose themselves where to spend their access money within the list of proposed possibilities, this opens the door for thousands of pounds to be wasted on more access and outreach schemes such as those already in place at Oxford and Cambridge University that have been completely ineffectual in realistically improving the ratio of disadvantaged students taking up places. Universities have been quick to point out that they are already taking access measures such as organising school talks and visits, with the Russell Group of top universities claiming that its members already spend £75 million a year on access projects. So in reality the impact here is likely to be a huge blow to access to university for underprivileged students as universities tighten their belts, making bursaries and grants less available, whilst money is poured into ineffectual but compulsory access outreach programs. No targets or levels Amazingly, OFFA will not be setting any specific access targets for universities to achieve in order to retain their high levels of tuition fees, nor will they even decide whether a university should be classed as having a high or low level of underprivileged students. The institutions will be able to decide “for themselves” which category they fall into and decide what funds ought to be allocated accordingly. These are hardly the tough regulations Clegg promised to deter them from setting tuition fees at the highest possible levels and to “dramatically increase” the uptake of less advantaged students at the most prestigious universities. A spokesperson for the 1994 group of research universities unsurprisingly “welcomed” the proposals, praising them for allowing universities to set “their own priorities”. So the government promises to force universities to prioritise access for underprivileged students as a requirement to offset the potentially devastating impact of raised tuition fees on poorer applicants seems to have fallen utterly by the wayside. No Retribution To make matters even worse, there are no stated definite ramifications for those universities failing to comply with the guidelines; with OFFA simply retaining the power to withdraw agreement for universities to continue charging fees above £6000 should they feel adequate access measures were not being taken. Small comfort, given that the body has had this power since its initial formation but never once used it in spite of shockingly low percentages of underprivileged students taking up places at our top universities. Then again, how could they impose sanctions and punishments on a system so malleable and toothless that it does not even have any stated targets or goals? Regardless of the levels of fees they charge or access measures they take, with no set requirements for improving their access figures it will be impossible for universities to fail. Economic consequences The likely result of all this will be a surge in price, with many top universities in England choosing to set their tuition fees at the maximum limit of £9000. This will cause huge difficulties for the government, whose allocation of funds for student loan provision has been calculated on the basis of an average fee of £7500. So once again, after decimating the chances of reaching higher education for those from the most underprivileged backgrounds and creating a tiered education system where the rich can pay and the poor miss out, the coalition government may even have created a scheme that costs far more money than it saves.